From pycyn@aol.com Fri Jun 30 18:42:25 2000
Return-Path:
Received: (qmail 13580 invoked from network); 1 Jul 2000 01:42:25 -0000
Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26) by m1.onelist.org with QMQP; 1 Jul 2000 01:42:25 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO imo-r10.mx.aol.com) (152.163.225.10) by mta1 with SMTP; 1 Jul 2000 01:42:25 -0000
Received: from Pycyn@aol.com by imo-r10.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v27.10.) id a.6a.44a3f19 (2616) for ; Fri, 30 Jun 2000 21:42:23 -0400 (EDT)
Message-ID: <6a.44a3f19.268ea67e@aol.com>
Date: Fri, 30 Jun 2000 21:42:22 EDT
Subject: Re: [lojban] Opposite of za'o
To: lojban@egroups.com
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: AOL 3.0 16-bit for Windows sub 41
From: pycyn@aol.com
In a message dated 00-06-30 19:55:06 EDT, xorxes writes:
<< >But isn't {na za'o} either ungrammatical or exactly equivalent to {zo'o
>na},
>{na} having to occur immediately before the predicate and yet govering the
>whole bridi?
It is both grammatical and (I think) not equivalent.
{na} can alternate with as many tenses as it pleases, and
the whole thing occurs immediately before the predicate and
governs the whole bridi.>>
Yes, after three records on this, you'd think I would get used to it.
<>
But this apparently not, since the negation boundary with {na} is at the
leftmost of the prefix, so moving its actual place in the sentence does not
affect its scope. DeMorgan is not to be used (nor the corresponding thing
with quantifiers). To make that move requires {naku} (Ch. 15, sec. 4, etc.).
In a message dated 00-06-30 19:44:27 EDT, xorxes writes:
<< It may be as you say, but to me
"still" has a strong component of "beyond expectation". >>
But {za'o} is not about expectations exactly, but rather about the contour of
events (treated systematically as though objective -- we rejected the
intentional interpretation, which I am not sure would help here anyhow).
This is starting to sound like an attitudinal -- impatience (not either anger
nor surprise seems to fit)?
In most of the examples of {za'o} the reading "keep on" makes sense, though
it does not with many of the "still" cases "Still" seems often to be about
time limits rather than inherent limits -- and a subjective sense of time
limits to boot. Thus it seems to be interchangeable in some contexts with
"yet," which, however, is both more hopeful (suggesting more than "still"
that it will happen) and more worried. And these again suggest attidudinals
rather than aspects are involved.
<<>I can be in High Point,
>with my car still running, and be still on my way to Pineville even though
>mi
>na za'o klama py.
Why would you say that you were still on your way, if there
was no expectation that you should no longer be on your way?>>
Aside from thinking this is an odd way to go to Pineville (does sticking to
the interstates really make it that much a better trip? even at an extra
hundred miles or so?), it is clear that he has not overtravelled at this
point ({na za'o} is true, though an understatement). If his intended goal is
Pineville, then, if he gets not farther, the trip ends before it is finished
(and it would make no sense to insist that what ended was a trip to High
Point, since that one -- which he did not have in mind to take -- was
completed) ({co'u}). The fact that he is not going any farther on that trip
is why it is stopped, not why it was not that trip at all.